Miscellaneous desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 10

Strange Powerball "Snyder" commercial

Is there some kind of inside joke to the currently-airing Powerball commercial which includes a guy named Snyder who is walking into an elevator covered in tar and feathers without anyone else seeming to notice? I read how there's a Redskins coach named Snyder some think this ad is pointed at, but I also read how this commercial was taped at least a month before the coach drew negative press. So is the comedy of this ad just supposed to be its randomness or something else? 71.168.4.163 (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Daniel Snyder is the team's owner; Jim Zorn is the head coach. However, Redskins fans have wanted to tar and feather Snyder for years now (Redskins' Dan Snyder now NFL's worst owner). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This USA Today item states that "Cary Hatch, whose MDB Communications is the ad company for the D.C. Lottery, told the Washington Post the commercial was not intended as a slap at embattled Redskins owner Daniel Snyder." (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Clarityfiend (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aninotes

Anyone know of any sites like the old aninotes that work the same way? Thanks 66.133.196.152 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you could tell us what an aninote is. Dismas|^(talk) 06:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "aninote", it seems to be short for "animated note". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Clippy, die is what I think when I see things like animated emoticons. I wonder how a web could provide a note? Dmcq (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prices + tax

how do I know how much something REALLY costs with tax, by looking at its price?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add the tax to the posted price. If it says $24 and the tax is 10%, then add 2.40 and the total cost is $26.40. Edison (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but how do I know how much the tax is?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, it depends on where you're buying it (but it's generally constant within a city or county). Most cashiers should be able to tell you. — Lomn 15:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you? Our Value added tax, Sales tax, Sales taxes in the United States and Sales taxes in Canada give the rates for some regions and goods. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fort worth,txAccdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then Sales taxes in the United States#Texas should give you a rough indication. 6.25% state-wide, with local jurisdictions able to apply another 2% (Fort Worth apparently does) for a total of 8.25%. The main items exempt from sales tax include medicines (prescription and over-the-counter), food and food seeds (but prepared food, such as from a restaurant, is subject to sales tax). As an aside, I find it weird that US price displays need not include compulsory taxes, as UK ones do. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually illegal in many areas of North America to show the price inclusive of tax. When it was legal to do so, sneaky sellers would frequently list the price inclusive of tax, then add tax again at the sales counter and pocket the difference. --NellieBly (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of a tax that was not compulsory. Imagine a tax where you elect to pay when it is not mandatory. Googlemeister (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have I, but the word compulsory was there when I looked up about the UK regulations. I was just sticking with my source. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The taxes are compulsory. The display of the tax-inclusive price is not. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what is weird. You have to pay the price including tax, so why is that not the price displayed? I find it really annoying to buy something for 1$ in the US, pull out a single dollar bill to pay, and then get asked for more cash. --Phil Holmes (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse is when you turn in one of those winning pop caps that get you a free pop, and they want to charge you tax. Googlemeister (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if my memory of US TV ads is accurate, when you fall for one of those "Order in the next 10 minutes and get XYZ free" cons where you have to pay postage, packing and sales tax on the "free" gift, which are massively overpriced so you end up paying at least cost price for the "gift". --Tango (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia introduced a GST in 2000, applying to most goods and services. Right from the start, it was illegal to advertise the price of something without including the GST. I once reported a company that advertised a certain price for airport car parking, but when I got there, they only then added the GST in. If the true price of obtaining something includes postage, packing, handling, etc, they also have to advertise that (otherwise they'd be in breach of the Trade Practices Act; but sometimes the huge highlighting of the cost of the good itself swamps the minuscule mention of the extra costs, and that borders on misleading, imo. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas sex scene

Are you aware that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto:_San_Andreas has a sex scene in it of a man having sex with a nurse? I had school children using this site and now I have to remove it. Please tell me this was a mistake. Mr Duty <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.148.110 (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be trolling. Anyway, We know that. But we won't do anything about it because Wikipedia is not censored. Goodbye Mister.--Ace Oliveira (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although we do remove email addresses left here - please don't post them. See instructions at the top of the page. Ka renjc 17:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that page is bad, you should see the other pages. Wikipedia: not for prudes, not for educational institutions that are worried about censorship! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the way people aren't worried by minor infractions as in 'police will handle "minor" infractions (attacking people, pointing guns at people, stealing cars, killing a few people, etc.)' but are worried about a sex scene. Strange priorities. Dmcq (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Wikipedia isn't censored, but still, is that really necessary? You might expect something different in one of the sex position articles, but this makes it seem like Wikipedia is run by lame teenagers looking for an excuse to rebel. (Oh wait...) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it was pretty controversial at the time. I'm not sure a screenshot of two blocky polygons having sex is really very titillating, and I do think it improves the article. When I first heard about the "hot coffee" controversy, I was pretty curious to see what it was all about. Unsurprisingly, it is a bit underwhelming, and I think that is made fairly clear by the image being included. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the OP believe it is possible to have sex in the position depicted with a fully clothed nurse? We need a {{Titillating fact}} tag for this. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, there are far more 'interesting' things around here than that...but no doubt the students have already found them as well. Perhaps closer supervision is in order instead of complaints to the reference desk. 10draftsdeep (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having kids unsupervised in front of any Internet-connected device basically leaves you open to all manner of such things. There is no screening software or school policy-making that's going to prevent that because when it comes to digital stuff - they can run rings around you. If you leave them unsupervised then Wikipedia is the very least of your concerns. You really only have three choices: (1) Don't let the kids use the Internet. (2) Supervise them closely when they are using it. (3) Stop worrying - kids find out about this stuff perfectly well even without the Internet - and that's really a good thing because parents really don't like having to give "that talk" if they can possibly avoid it! What you DO need to teach them is stuff like not revealing personal information over the net - that can get them into real, physical harm - and with sites like FaceBook enticing them to put up personal information...that's where your concerns should lie. SteveBaker (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an illustration of probably the most notable part of the game. APL (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most countries with computer game rating systems outside of Australia, the game has a rating which means it's likely unsuitable for anyone under the age of 17. Unless your school kids are over the age of 17, they probably shouldn't have been reading the article period. In any case, as SB and others have said, if you let them have unsupervised access to the internet, or even wikipedia, there are far worse things they can come across and there's also the risk of vandalism meaning this could happen even in fairly innocous articles. Also if you do come across vandalism while your kids are using wikipedia, I would take care before coming and complaining to us (actually there's little point complaining period) as IIRC we had a case where it seemed likely the vandalism originated from school children who were viewing the page the teacher directed them to. (Incidentally I see your IP has been used to make two 'test' edits.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people who play M-rated video games are generally not old enough to do so. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crank

is crank (film) medically accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.85 (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, Not remotely. Googlemeister (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. If such a drug did exist the solution would be regular injections of epinephrine, which is relatively easy to get hold of (illegal without prescription, sure, but still easy to get if you don't care about the law). In fact, our plot summary (I've haven't actually seen the film and don't intend to) says he did break into a hospital and steal epinephrine, so I don't know why he had to do all those reckless stunts. --Tango (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a drug that inhibited adrenaline production would not result in cardiac arrest. Your heart can survive just fine without adrenaline. Fribbler (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there's worse on this site if u LOOK for it 69.122.39.75 (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)sam[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. So we can go fix it. Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section perhaps? Fribbler (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Railroads, space shuttles, horses' behinds - author?

The story is famous, but does anybody know the author? --KnightMove (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the author but at the website you gave the header says By Astrodigital and the footer gives an e-mail address astro@astrodigital.org. A name Jim Plaxco is also shown. Send Jim an e-mail with your question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to bet a large amount that neither Astrodigital nor Jim Plaxco authored this bit of urban legendry, portions of which seem to date back to 1905 at least. --LarryMac | Talk 22:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, LarryMac! --KnightMove (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy Test

I am not asking for medical advice, just curious. When taking a pregnancy test, if there is a faint like (like faint to the point that you have to look at it at the right angle) does that indicate pregnency... Is there any other reason or hormones that might make the line appear? Or do they only test for certin hormones etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.50.226 (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably says on the box or in the instructions that anything that looks maybe, sort of, possibly, something like whatever sign they are using for "positive", actually means "positive". Not that this is medical advice or anything, but just take another one, there are usually two or three in a box. I think the box will also tell you to go see a doctor if you are still unsure. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What we have starts at at Pregnancy test#Modern tests, and goes on to includes a section on false positives. The technology of the tester is most likely a Lateral flow test; my reading of that suggests that it may be possible that very low levels of the target analyte (as I learn to call it) will in certain testers produce faint lines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the old days they would have said "The rabbit is a little bit dead." Edison (talk) 06:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except "the rabbit died" indicating a pregnancy is a fallacy; the rabbit always died when it was cut open to check the results, whatever they were. FiggyBee (talk) 06:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rabbit didn't die on an episode of MASH when Hotlips thought that she might be pregnant. Radar was upset that his rabbit was going to die, so the doctors promised to keep the rabbit alive. Sorry, I can't recall the episode title. Dismas|^(talk) 07:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's Up Doc? - from List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 6). --LarryMac | Talk 14:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to summon User:Baseball Bugs? --M @r ē ino 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle registration plates of Bremerhaven

Why hasn't the city of Bremerhaven an own district code? --88.77.232.41 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of the state of Bremen, which consists of the city of Bremen and the - entirely seperate - enclave / exclave Bremerhaven. Both are completely surrounded by Lower Saxony. For both the license plate is HB (Hansestadt Bremen = Hanseatic city Bremen) plus the suffix. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really answer the question why. Bremerhaven is the only city in Germany that shares a license plate code with another city. I have searched in vain for the reason why, alone among German cities, Bremerhaven was not assigned a distinct code in 1956, when most of the West German codes originated. I will repeat this question on the German Wikipedia Reference Desk and hope for an answer. Marco polo (talk) 03:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably has a lot to do with the unique relationship between Bremen and Bremerhaven, which is really a sui generis sort of relationship. They are seperate settlements in the sense of being geographically distinct concentrations of population, but they were historically a single municipality; it might be better to think of Bremerhaven and Bremen as a single city in two seperated chunks rather than as two distinct cities. --Jayron32 04:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, actually Bremerhaven has been a separate city since at least the early 1900s. It was under the jurisdiction of the city-state of Bremen, but still considered a separate municipality. By the time German license-plate codes were issued in 1956, Bremen was a state, much like the other German federal states, except that it consisted of just two cities. In every other German state, each city got its own license-plate codes, though some of them shared this code with a neighboring rural or suburban district. Bremen and Bremerhaven are the only two cities not part of larger districts (state subdivisions like US counties) that share a license-plate code.

Based on my research yesterday evening and some of the answers on the German Reference Desk, I think I can formulate a speculative answer to the question, though I don't have sources. Prior to the 1950s, German license plates were issued by federal state, though some of the larger states had different codes for different internal regions (though these regions were larger than the present-day cities and districts). Bremen was and is one of the smallest German states. When the present system of license-plate codes was created in 1956, each of the German "city-states" (Berlin, Hamburg, and Bremen) was assigned a single code, even though one of them (Bremen) consisted of two municipalities. The principle of one code for each city-state seems to have trumped the principle of one code for each city outside of a district, perhaps because Bremerhaven is such a small city, and it might have seemed inefficient to create a separate licensing authority just for Bremerhaven. Marco polo (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Rust in Austria? --88.78.10.61 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]